Search form

You are here

and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes. Vancian magic was always a terrible idea and giving wizards the ability to alter reality at high levels made wizards far too often the focus of the group.

Essentials was bad enough, Next is looking like a reprint of first edition. I just hope you don't dredge up ability caps for being female like one update I vaguely remember suggesting.

Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.

One thing many people forget about is what a playtest is for: give a basic idea and get opinons.Another thing people often forget is that game design for the playtest is a very early stage and, since it's just the base of the game, it will look terribly like redbox.

Yet from 4th edition they did learn to balance the math, and further options 4th edition-like will be added in modules, since they are hard to remove once in core, and a loat of people will never play a game with some of that options inculded.

May be slightly off topic, but what if they added certain side-effects for casting super high level spells like Wish or Time Stop? It is not out of the realm of possibility that those kinds of reality altering spells would maybe have some kind of adverse effect on the caster. I don't know if that would put a lot people off or not, but it might make wizards think twice and reserve those kinds of spells for "oh sh*t" moments. The alternative of, "We spend a month in town wishing ourselves super awesome" is certainly not appealing.

Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.

Uh... maybe you should actually study some history sometime. Maybe take a look at ancient combat techniques such as Jiu Jitsu, Taijutsu, Pancrase, and even some more modern systems such as SAMBO? Yeah, ancient warriors were far more than just big lumps of muscle smashing things. Look at knights even, they were trained from youth and their techniques involved far more than just swinging a sword and smashing things.

Warriors just swinging a sword and smashing things may be classical D&D, but it's not in the least historically accurate. Combat manuevers reflect that, but so sorry it conflicts with your caster uber alles philosophy.

a_troll00 has said, "Humans like you have ruined your own lands. You will not ruin mine!"

You must not have been paying attention to my posts. I've been highly critical of this playtest iteration, but what I don't do is then extrapolate that to how they hate my playstyle, are lying to me, and won't ever address my concerns.

I have absolutely no problem providing honest negative feedback when they give me things that suck. But I do limit that feedback to what they've actually given. In truth, I wrote off this iteration within a few days of reading it, as soon as I had my first playtest. When I literally said "The rest of my turns are magic missile until it dies, or I do, since there's nothing else to do that actually requires me making any decisions" that was when I gave up on this iteration.

But that still doesn't mean that I ignore everything else they're doing and may do in the future.

Holy cow, Mand! You're the sensible one always advocating patience and encouraging us to wait for further developments. And YOU were very disappointed? I am stunned/save ends.

I don't wish to speak for Mand, but as another "wait and see" person, I can see how the incompleteness of the first playtest could be very disappointing. I didn't find it to be so, but I do see Mand's point.

Let's hope character creation, details of more than 4 classes, and some reasonable level advancement are in the next pack.

Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.

So fighters and other weapon using classes should have no special abilities except to be able to swing their weapon like an automaton? They shouldn't have manuevers and fighting combinations? Yeah, tell that to I don't know...every action hero ever. Tell John McClain that he can't slide down a hallway with two pistols blazing shooting the bad guys in a room as he slides past it. Tell Conan that he can't swing his sword in amazing arcs of death. Tell Captain America that he can't throw his shield anymore. Tell Batman he can't throw a spread of batarangs that hit multiple opponents. That's what 4e Martial Exploits allowed for. They weren't 'psuedo-magical'.

I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?

You must not have been paying attention to my posts. I've been highly critical of this playtest iteration, but what I don't do is then extrapolate that to how they hate my playstyle, are lying to me, and won't ever address my concerns.

I have absolutely no problem providing honest negative feedback when they give me things that suck. But I do limit that feedback to what they've actually given.

I´m wondering how many people voted "I´m very disatisfied" in this one.

I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?

Don't let the forums and internet chatter get you down. Vocal minorities and all that. Apparently the reception in the surveys is much different then what we hear on the boards.

I also hope that they don't read too much into the spells thing, either. Half the spells (the top half, mostly) are just flat out too strong, too game-altering, too "IWIN Button." I don't care how many people say that Wish is an iconic spell, it should not be the sort of thing that a cleric or wizard just automatically gets as a reward for killing that 100000th kobold. That sort of power should be the thing of plot awards, rather than automatic mechanical gain.

And after getting a taste of modern game design that isn't trapped in the 70s, I will never again play a game without it.

I've heard this thrown around these forums a bit and I've got to say that I really don't get this at all. If you don't like the design of the game that's fine. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, (hell, on some points I may even be inclined to agree) but I would argue that there's no such thing as "modern" game design, and that even if there were it wouldn't be better or worse than "classic" game design.

After all we're talking about a game that uses dice, paper and imagination. The technology for these things hasn't changed in the last 40 years. If we were talking Pong vs. Madden 2012 then sure, the technology has advanced and thus the designs can be expanded and refined, but Chess is no worse of a game than Settlers of Catan simply because one is newer.

Game design hasn't changed, players may have, but game design remains the same.

I put that I was 'satisfied'. If the playtest were presented as the core of the finished game, I'd be disappointed - but I've already provided feedback on what I think is wrong with it. As a playtest, it doesn't suck.

To be fair, some of them kind of were. The majority of them weren't so bad, but there were a couple that clearly crossed the line.

Still, to say that martial maneuvers shouldn't be allowed because they're too magical would be like saying Vancian spells shouldn't be allowed because they're overpowered. Just don't include the obviously magical maneuvers, and don't include the overpowered spells, and everything should be fine.

Game design ABSOLUTELY has changed. A generation of people has grown up with it, and come to adulthood, and decided that they could to better, make a more fun, more interesting, more entertaining, more challenging, more whatever, game. And the evidence? A generation of awesome (and, yes, not so awesome) games. Magic, for instance. Dominion. Settlers. Carcasonne. FATE. 13th Age. Feng Shui. Paranoia, in its various iterations. Shadowrun, ditto. From an industry which basically didn't exist before the '70s, we now have... an industry, with wildly varied products and offerings. Things have changed, things have developed. Saying game design hasn't changed because it's still pen and paper, is like saying video game design hasn't changed in 15 years, because it's still on computers.

You must not have been paying attention to my posts. I've been highly critical of this playtest iteration, but what I don't do is then extrapolate that to how they hate my playstyle, are lying to me, and won't ever address my concerns.

I have absolutely no problem providing honest negative feedback when they give me things that suck. But I do limit that feedback to what they've actually given. In truth, I wrote off this iteration within a few days of reading it, as soon as I had my first playtest. When I literally said "The rest of my turns are magic missile until it dies, or I do, since there's nothing else to do that actually requires me making any decisions" that was when I gave up on this iteration.

But that still doesn't mean that I ignore everything else they're doing and may do in the future.

Ah ha! I gotcha . ya How does "just wait and see" feel now? You are just knee jerking like you said I was. You don't believe your beloved WOTC now? Or did you just awaken from the utopian dream? Man I made it two months you made it how long (a few days)before you gave up on it? You have just shot your own credability with me Mand 12. funny enough we have some of the same concerns. To bad. Hope you find a game you like, happy gaming bud.

...what?

I never said any of that. I am waiting and seeing, and not willing to ignore the rest of the material they've released (blog posts, articles, interviews, AMA, etc) in favor of a knee-jerk reaction.

That you think what I wrote is a knee-jerk reaction and that I don't believe them and I'm moving on to a new game demonstrates clearly and in no uncertain terms that you have no idea what I wrote.

To be clear: I gave up on this iteration of the playtest. As in, I decided there was nothing more I could test that would provide any useful feedback, and that I would.....*gasp*.....wait and see for new material. Even consdering my negative reaction to this iteration, I say this: Patience. More is coming.

@DarkScarab, what has changed is the amount of understanding of mathematics, psychology, and actual game theory that game designers now bring to their job. 30 years ago there were far fewer RPG's with far fewer designers and a lot less to look back on. Many people state that the industry is evolving. I'd probably say that the industry is maturing. Modern design is different from early RPG design because more designers have entered the market with a greater variety of specialized skills and decades of successful and failed game products to look back on.

I'm actually with Mand on this. I have little emtional investment, so I wouldn't consider this a betrayal by my favorite brand as much as just another mistep in the history of gaming. A mistep that can actually be correct for, though I'm not holding my breath for it. I am very disastisfied with the playtest so far and feel this recent survey was asking questions based on way too many assumptions about both theme and balance that I would have preferred were tested and addressed first.

I don't even think this iteration is a misstep. Sure, I don't like it, but they weren't wrong to take it. I do think it could have used a little more polishing, but even a mistake is a step forward, not a misstep.

and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes.

If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?

4TH Ed was not a roleplaying game, it was a table-top wargame designed to try and leverage even more money out of the 'Magic the Gathering' crowd.

What about 4th kept it from being a roleplaying game? Since I've played a ton of radically different games that all called themselves roleplaying games I'm curious as to where you draw that imaginary arbitrary distinction.

Game design ABSOLUTELY has changed. A generation of people has grown up with it, and come to adulthood, and decided that they could to better, make a more fun, more interesting, more entertaining, more challenging, more whatever, game. And the evidence? A generation of awesome (and, yes, not so awesome) games. Magic, for instance. Dominion. Settlers. Carcasonne. FATE. 13th Age. Feng Shui. Paranoia, in its various iterations. Shadowrun, ditto. From an industry which basically didn't exist before the '70s, we now have... an industry, with wildly varied products and offerings.

Just because there are new games doesn't mean the basic principals behind their designs are new. No game you listed was particularlly innovative. The settings may be new for the RPGS and they use slightly different mechanics but the core precepts are the same as many games that have come before them.

Things have changed, things have developed.

What things? I ask honestly because I don't see them. If I'm wrong here then I'd like to know the reasons why but so far it seems to be people just saying it's so and that's not enough for me.

Saying game design hasn't changed because it's still pen and paper, is like saying video game design hasn't changed in 15 years, because it's still on computers.

No, in fact I called that out in my post. Computers have changed drastically since the first video game and thus the design has too.

and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes.

If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?

@MrChamp: Insulting, inaccurate, and edition war bait. That sort of thing has no place here.

This thread might aswell be titled '5th ED sucks because it's not 4th ED'. What else do you expect?

Actually the thread might as well be titled 'I am not qualified to be a playtester, but I am playtesting anyways'.

Unfortunately, that title is a good description of the vast majority of threads on this forum. The average consumer is a terrible playtester, because they unable to provide constructive and/or focused feedback.

Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.

Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.

So fighters and other weapon using classes should have no special abilities except to be able to swing their weapon like an automaton? They shouldn't have manuevers and fighting combinations? Yeah, tell that to I don't know...every action hero ever. Tell John McClain that he can't slide down a hallway with two pistols blazing shooting the bad guys in a room as he slides past it. Tell Conan that he can't swing his sword in amazing arcs of death. Tell Captain America that he can't throw his shield anymore. Tell Batman he can't throw a spread of batarangs that hit multiple opponents. That's what 4e Martial Exploits allowed for. They weren't 'psuedo-magical'.

First off, I'm not trying to bait anyone into a fight or anything like that. I just want more clarification of some examples of Fighter Abilities. What kind of stuff would you want to see? The things you described aren't necessarily things your fighter CAN'T do. How do you slide down a hallway with pistols blazings? "Hey, my fighter is going to run down the stairs with both crossbows blazing." If your fighter is on the second story of a tavern and wants to swing across the chandlier, land on a table and kick some bandit harassing a cute barmaid, what's stopping you from doing just that? Do you need a "Swing on Chandlier" rule?

and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes.

If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?

Saying that nothing's changed because most games take most things from other games is like criticizing a new novel as not being innovative because it still uses words.

No that's not like what I'm saying at all, If we're using a book comparison. Story structure hasn't changed since the 18th century and even then very little, and yet new books come out all the time.

I'll admit calling them not innovative was poor word choice though there were clearly new takes on old ideas which IS what innovation is, but my point stands in that they didn't come up with new game design theory to make them.